Say Anything Blog

The Democrats want to turn the whole Foley mess into a campaign issue, which isn’t surprising given that the last few weeks of intensive debate over national security and the war on terror has resulted in resurgent approval numbers for both Republicans and President Bush.

The problem is that in order to turn this into a campaign issue the Democrats, assisted as always by their allies in the media, must draw the Republican party in general into the scandal.  Which is exactly what they’re doing, or at least trying to do, with these insinuations about Republican House leadership trying to cover-up Foley’s escapades with this kid.

The thing is, though, that the Republican House leadership didn’t have anything to cover up.  At least not according to the information we have now.

Rep. Tom Reynolds has said that he told Hastert of the communications between Foley and the boy last year, which makes it sound like Hastert learned of Foley’s inappropriate actions but let it slide.  In reality, though, Hastert got a much different picture of what was going on than what we have now.

From the New York Times:

  Aides to the speaker and other Congressional Republican leaders said that the messages brought to their attention — described as “over friendly” — were much less explicit than others that came to light after ABC News disclosed the first e-mail correspondence. In those messages, Mr. Foley asked about the well-being of the boy, a Monroe, La., resident, after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph.

  He wrote: “How are you weathering the hurricane. . .are you safe. . .send me a pic of you as well.”…

  “No one in the speaker’s office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the Internet this week,” the statement from Mr. Hastert’s office said.

Let me remind everyone that charging someone with having inappropriate relations with a child (albeit a child who is legally able to consent to sex under the laws of Washington D.C.) is probably, short of accusing them of rape or murder, one of the most serious accusations you can make against someone.  You do not make that accusation, and ruin their life and career, unless it is based on sound evidence.  Hastert clearly, according to the reporting above, did not have that information.

Further, the action Hastert did take upon originally learning of the situation seems entirely appropriate to me:

Again, from the New York Times:

  Mr. Alexander called the boy’s parents, who, he said Saturday, told him they did not want to pursue the matter but wanted Mr. Foley to stop.

  Mr. Alexander’s office also contacted staff members in Mr. Hastert’s office for guidance on what to do and. According to the speaker’s account, his aides put Mr. Alexander’s staff in contact with the clerk of the House, who oversees the page program. The clerk, who at the time was Jeff Trandahl, referred the matter to Representative John Shimkus, the Illinois Republican who is the chairman of the House Page Board, in late 2005, a spokesman for Mr. Shimkus said.

  Mr. Trandahl and Mr. Shimkus confronted Mr. Foley, who insisted he was simply acting as a mentor to the former page, officials said. He assured them nothing inappropriate had occurred.

  “They asked Foley about the email,” the speaker’s statement said. “Congressman Shimkus and the clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.”

If Hastert and other members Republican House leadership didn’t know about the sexually explicit messages between this kid and Foley then I just don’t see how, with their actions, they “covered up” anything.

As far as we know, the existence of the more sordid communications between Foley and this kid were known only to those two (and probably the kid’s parents as well) prior to the publication of them on Friday via some anonymous source.

Which leads us to this question posed by a commenter over at Rick Moran’s blog:

Reportedly the St Pete Times had the same information in August 2005 and wrote nothing about it either, apparently because the emails do not constitute illegal conduct, they are just creepy, and the boy’s parents did not wish to pursue this.

The far more damaging IM messages were released by CREW , the same “public interest” group which is representing the Wilson/Plames in their laughable suit against Cheney, et al.

When did they get the IM’s? Why did they wait until now to release them? Is there any indication the Republicans who looked into THIS MATTER had any knowledge of their(the IM’s) existence.

Pardon an old lady’s suspicions. I’ve seen this dance too many times before.

The big question is this: Did Republicans in the House know about the sexually explicit nature of Foley’s communications prior to the media publishing them this week?  If they did, then this is a major problem for Republicans and probably an issue for the coming election.  If they didn’t, then this is an issue that begins and ends with Foley.  We also need to know when this source learned of these communications.  Did they sit on these sexually explicit messages until right before the election, and if so why was their lack of action any better than the Republicans’?

Unless someone has more information about what House Republicans knew and when they knew it, this story is pretty much dry.  But Democrats and their media allies will no doubt continue to push the issue because rather than talk about other more important issues (like that whole war on terror thing).